"More books like this one introducing historical study in a
sympathetic was are needed.."

Now in paperback

... and into its 3rd
reprint!

Shortly before Christmas 2014, and just days after
rejecting my appeal for English Heritage to disclose information that I had told
them I knew existed, a trickle of new documents began.

I have just received a document sent to their 'non-review'
committee in March 2013 setting out what the response of EH would be. They
finally published this as the DRC's
conclusion at the end of July 2013.

There is a pattern in EH's behaviour: You may recall that
EH told their Battlefields Panel in Feb 2012 that they did not intend to
designate the site because of the planning situation. But the expert Panel,
unlike the eminent Review Committee, stood up to EH.

Quite how the predetermined conclusion can be reconciled
with what members of the Review Committee said,
according to notes very recently disclosed by EH, I intend to investigate.

This is what the committee members are quoted as saying:

1 The pro recognition comments

·Strong likelihood of site

·strong but not incontrovertible

·Makes location inherently fit - as agreed by
other (members)

·We are not saying he’s wrong - we are saying he
can’t prove he’s right.

·has ID’d potential to suggest possible site

·not incorrect just insufficient

·probability
it’s here - He’s not wrong.

·the site concerned has strong claim

·Pay tribute to Chas J
-interesting material-case not yet clinched

·In accepting the ‘Germany beck remains the most
likely candidate for the site of the battle of Fulford’, the original
designation assessment disagrees significantly with the conclusion of the 2006
public inquiry.

2 The many calls for extra work

·Recommend further investigation - how?

·mitigation strategy desirable.

·Ideally we’d wait for more investigation

·Notes BFP [Battlefield Panel] support for more
effective mitigation strategies

·Ask for more xxx xxxxxx before dismissing …

·Real need for
more methodological exploration

·Protect as an archaeological ‘site under AMAAAA’
79 an Archaeological Area?

·this reinforces the issue of further mitigation
that we would expect to see during the planning process